Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Luckily for us, the veteran anti-feminist pioneer, Phyllis Schlafly, is still writing a regular column focused on politics and regularly points out the results of feminist ideology enacted into law.

Her latest column sheds in important light onto the real-world consequences of the infamous Title IX ruling demanding equal ratios of gender in any college athletics program of any school that receives Federal funding.

According to Feminist proponents, the idea was to boost the offering of athletic opportunities for women....but in practical reality has resulted in drastically reducing opportunities for men.

Is this not the typical end result of just about every single piece of feminist-lobbied legislation?

Read 'em and weep...

Title IX Tied Our Hands At the Olympics

The Olympics demonstrated again what competition, hard work and determination can produce, as numerous world records were shattered. American swimmer Michael Phelps and gymnast Nastia Liukin gave us much to cheer.

But U.S. athletes won in spite of Title IX regulations, which impose gender quotas on sports for institutions that receive any federal money. Title IX has crippled our national competitiveness.

Title IX regulations have forced educational institutions to eliminate men's teams until the number of men and women on sports teams is the same ratio as the number of men and women enrolled in academic classes. In the numerous colleges that are now 60 percent female in academic enrollment, Title IX requires that men's teams be eliminated until only 40 percent of the athletes are men.

Title IX quotas have caused the elimination of all but 19 men's college gymnastics teams. This deprives boys of the scholarship incentive to take up gymnastics as a sport in high school and takes away the competition needed to improve their skills in college.

The effect of this injustice hit us hard in Beijing. The Chinese (who are not restricted by feminist nonsense) destroyed our men's gymnastics team and won seven out of eight gold medals, while our men's gymnastics team failed to win a single gold medal in eight events.

Then there is men's freestyle wrestling, a sport that the United States had repeatedly dominated at the Olympics. Over the years, we had won a very high percentage of medals in wrestling.

But Title IX's gender quotas have forced the elimination of 467 wrestling teams from our colleges. This has nothing to do with lack of funding, since wrestling is one of the most inexpensive of sports, it's due to feminist ideology that demands eliminating macho sports in order to meet the foolish Title IX quotas.

The devastating outcome in the 2008 Olympics was predictable. America won only one medal, which was in men's freestyle wrestling's lightest-weight class, and that was won by the son of illegal aliens who did not wrestle in college.

The Americans who won in Beijing typically did so in spite of Title IX. Michael Phelps, who won eight gold medals (about one-fourth of all U.S. gold medals), trained privately and didn't compete on a college team.

Many men's swimming teams have been eliminated due to Title IX quotas, and future American winners will likely avoid college. Why bother attending college if you can't play the sport you love?

Historically, the United States dominated diving competitions just like swimming, but because diving has a small team size, many of these programs have been eliminated in favor of large-squad-size sports such as rowing. American men and women divers were repeatedly eliminated from contention for medals.

Title IX's gender quotas end up hurting women as much as men because they distort the availability of women's teams in college. Small-squad sports like women's gymnastics and fencing have been eliminated in favor of large-squad sports that lack the same intense dedication and interest.

Nastia Liukin, our star gymnast who won five medals, was born in Russia and trained at her family's private gymnastics club. She attended Southern Methodist University in 2007, and SMU is bragging on its Website about her Olympic achievements.

But SMU dropped its small women's gymnastics team and instead has a large women's rowing team, and so had nothing to offer Liukin. SMU is 55 percent women and has publicly announced that it wants to be 55 percent in women's athletes.

A glance through other U.S. medal winners reveals a high percentage of athletes who did not benefit from any school athletic program. Several Americans, for example, won medals in shooting even though virtually all schools have banned rifle or shooting teams to appease the liberals.

Kristin Armstrong won a gold medal for America in cycling, but she went to high school in Japan, where her military family was living. Now 35 years old, she is another self-made female athlete who apparently did not benefit from Title IX.

The cost of quotas is more than our defeat by the Chinese at the Olympics and a loss in U.S. competitiveness. Prior to Title IX quotas, both our male and female athletes went on to become community leaders and model citizens who inspired and motivated the next generation.

It wasn't helpful when our last female Olympic swimming star, Amanda Beard, posed nude for Playboy and then bombed this time. Today's aspiring athletes lack the great role models of the past, and Title IX is not working.

The George W. Bush administration kept in force the ridiculous quotas originated by the radical feminists in the Jimmy Carter administration. We wonder whether the next administration will learn the lesson of the 2008 Olympics or remain intimidated by the anti-male feminists.

Monday, August 18, 2008

This post is a brief departure from my review and fisking of "Patriarchy Reasserted." I will be covering the rest of the paper the rest of this week, but I do want to point out that an anonymous commenter wrote on Part I:

Here is the danger in this nonsense. Other 'researchers' will get on the band wagon, and they will quote her as an expert in their own papers. Then, more. And, each will also be quoted as an expert.Soon, there will be a mountain of so-called evidence, all showing that...

BINGO! That's EXACTLY how Informational Cascades are started and built up to create a false sense of crisis to implement another step in the dialectical process of re-engineering society.

And the re-engineering of society is EXACTLY what is going on.

When I first began to delve extensively into the history of the feminist movement and trying to ascertain it's true purpose, I came across several sources that analyze how the social engineers that sought to change society to suit their agenda and implement their machinations.

The primary means was using the dialectical process, first described by German political philosopher, Hegel. Hegel's writings served as one of the primary sources and influences on Engels and Marx as they developed their communist ideology.

The dialectical process can be illustrated by a simple equation: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

Translated into layman's terms, the social engineers use a variety of means to build and/or support opposing movements with stated goals in opposition to each other to give the illusion of conflict when the synthesis or compromise is the actual desired result.

The desired result produces another problem in which their are once again a thesis and antithesis used to address the "new" problem until the next synthesis generates the next problem. Through this process, the Hegelian Dialectical process is able to slowly but inexorably change the fundamental nature of society, foment the gender wars and create the social havoc and dysfunction that characterize our modern age -- all with the ultimate goal of creating a one world, collectivist government of corporatist power brokers ruling the rest of us...the "Proletariat" as prophesied by Orwell.

The Labour government blames world economic factors for our country's woes and claims there's nothing they can do except weather the storm. This is complete tosh of course and much of the damage is a direct result of Labour's policies. When they first came to power their main agenda was to ensure that they did not again experience eighteen years in opposition. With this in mind, Labour indulged in a massive campaign of social engineering with the intention of making more Britons dependent on big government.

They did this mainly in two ways;

1. By creating a government dependent underclass who rely on state benefits for their income. This group will always vote Labour because it's in their interests to vote for a government that increases state benefits. The main targeted group was and still is single mothers. Labour has done all it can to destroy the traditional family and encourage women to live on their own, dependent on social security. At the same time fathers are milked of cash by way of CSA payments and increased taxes. The result has been an explosion in the numbers of single mothers on benefit with all the attended social problems this causes.

2. The creation of huge amounts of government bureaucracy. This means that more people now work for the government than at any time in history. Indeed, more than half of Britons rely on the government for most of their income. I've said before that this is Marxism by the back door. Again, this means more Labour voters as people who work for the government tend to vote Labour, the very party that created their worthless jobs in the first place. Most of these jobs are unproductive and many involve countless numbers of camera watchers, litter monitors and people counting lamp posts.

The result of all this is simple. More voters for Labour paid for by the taxpayer and by massive public borrowing - Britain has the highest public sector borrowing rate in the Western world. All this took place while the economy boomed which meant lots of tax revenue for the government. But instead of saving this bonanza of cash for a rainy day, Labour's spent the lot and more in the ways listed above and borrowed massively into the bargain. Unfortunately, the economy is now slipping into recession which means that the tax bonanza has stopped and the Treasury now has fewer tax pounds landing in its lap. Government spending on the other hand is increasing as more people sign on the dole and all those single mothers and government bureacrates still need paying. So it's a double whammy for the Treasury - more money going out and less tax money coming in.

See, The Labour party used the process to perfection (just as it has been used in the US and most other "first world" nations).

Thesis = Single Mothers Need Tax Payer Help to Raise Their Children.

Anti-thesis = The Father Should be the Main Supporter of his Offspring, not the Tax Payer.

Synthesis = Father's become wage slaves in the Tax Payer funded system or they become criminal "deadbeats."

See how that works?

And of course, the ultimate reality of this "synthesis?" All of the attendant pathologies and familial and social dysfunction that is the hallmark of the fatherless household lends itself to all sorts of new 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis.' It is the primary mechanism to such un-constitutional actions like the "war on drugs." And the "war on poverty." And a whole other host of ills that plague our modern world...many of which could be ameliorated if the role of the Father were restored to it's proper social and legal standing, and a universal code of conduct backed up by a strong social stigma of shame where re-instituted in mainstream consciousness. But that goes against the desire for the government to further it's own power and continue to breed dependence amongst the masses. Thus, the process continues to keep addressing the supposed "problems" manifest in each new synthesis, while the root causes are ignored so that the end-goal moves ever closer to reality.

Once you understand exactly how the Hegelian Dialectical process has been and continues to be implemented, you will have your eyes opened to just how far the social engineers of the power elite have come in re-shaping society into their version of Utopia...which happens to be We the People's version of dystopia.

Needless to say, by observing just how far along society has been engineered by this process, I am not optimistic about Western Civilization's future.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

First, I define key terms central to this discussion including sex, gender and patriarchy.

In which her definitions are all biased towards the feminist-extremist view point...

On Sex and Gender:

The sex/gender distinction is conceptually important because it challenges the notion that hierarchical gender differences are determined by biological differences between women and men. If differences and hierarchical power relations between the sexes are primarily culturally constructed, they are changeable. If they are natural, on the other hand, it would be both impossible and morally wrong (unnatural) to change them.

Hierarchical power relations between the sexes are most definitely culturally constructed, and as the social engineers and feminist activists have already proven, they are most certainly changeable.

What this feminazi fails to realize is that the very reason why a culture such as that which evolved in what we now call "Western Civilization," was due in part to the hierarchical power relations that resulted in strong, Patriarchal-modeled nuclear families...and that changing that structure by changing the gender roles through subversion, propaganda and gender-biased laws have resulted in social chaos, the spread of broken homes and the proliferation of psychologically scarred children and the pathologies that are the hallmarks of a civilization in decline.

On Patriarchy:

Familial patriarchy refers to forms of family structure where men are the head of the household.

So far, so good...

Social patriarchy refers to a sex/gender system in which men dominate women and what is considered masculine is more highly valued than what is considered feminine.

Here's where she once again goes off into feminazi propaganda territory. In a Patriarchal society, that which is feminine is the most highly valued trait of all. It is the current feminist upheaval of traditional patriarchy that has degraded and demeaned all the defining characteristics of femininity; motherhood (the ultimate feminine trait) is cast as slavery, and being a housewife was compared to the lives of concentration camp inmates by the likes of such feminist luminaries as Betty Friedan.

Patriarchy is a system of social stratification, which means that it uses a wide array of social control policies and practices to ratify male power and to keep girls and women subordinate to men.

Again, this is simply a matter of perspective. It is not about ratifying male power, but rather placing legal and social constraints on female sexual behavior...because the lack of constraints leads to all sorts of social and familial chaos - which is exactly what we are seeing today.

So, one can see that by first starting out with the feminist defined terms with regards to gender, sex and patriarchy, she has already started out with feminist extremist bias that will no doubt reinforce her conclusion that Father's Rights groups are really NOT based on correcting injustices in divorce, custody and family laws, but only that Father's Rights groups simply are neanderthal Patriarch's who simply want to dominate and oppress women for no other reason than being motivated by misogyny.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

I recieved an email today from Fidelbogen, The Counter-Feminist. He was informing me of a recent publication of an article by some femi-nazi, Women's Studies Lesbo-chick (degrading, misogynistic insults certainly intended...) from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. It is based on the theory that the online existence of a Father's Rights movement is a backlash against feminism.

While you cannot see the entire PDF document online without becoming a paying subscription member of Sage Journals Online, I have obtained a copy for which I am now going to excerpt and "Fisk."

First, the abstract preview:

The backlash against gender-sensitive responses to women’s victimization, offending, and imprisonment is inseparable from contemporary reaction against feminism and other progressive movements. The backlash against the American Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides a prime example of this resistance.

Yes, the backlash against the VAWA does provide an example of resistance...but feminism is hardly progressive -- more like "regressive." As in, regressing back to the social order of Matriarchy and the wonderful results in which it entails.

Despite widespread support for VAWA and other policies designed to address violence against women, some constituencies object to their existence. The author investigates fathers’ rights rhetoric on VAWA as an example of anti-feminist backlash.

The basic contention is not that some constituencies object to the existence of policies designed to address violence against women...but rather the recognition that in the name of "addressing violence against women," the feminist-extremists have passed laws that are used to to disenfranchise men from their children, cause further social chaos by contributing significantly to the proliferation of broken homes and fomenting the criminalization of an entire class of men -- Fathers -- who are guilty of nothing more than having Wives that decide to use the legal powers afforded them via legislation such as VAWA to gain advantages in divorce proceedings and custody disputes.

The entire premise of this paper is plainly revealed by Dragiewicz's abstract, and it rests entirely on the following premises:

* That VAWA is designed to address violence against women (it's not);

* That Father's Right's groups are a fringe minority group, and that they represent a backlash to feminism -- not because VAWA has been used to unjustly strip Father's of their children and assets and further the institution of peonage that has become the current child support system -- but because anyone opposed to it SUPPORTS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

When I read this abstract at the beginning of the paper, I suspected that she was framing the debate into terms that define the backlash against feminism as nothing more than a bunch of men that want to oppress, dominate and violate women. Reading the rest of her paper confirmed what I ascertained from the very first: she had a pre-determined conclusion and the entire paper is nothing more than confirmation of her own bias.

In short, this paper is nothing more than an exercise in regurgitating Women's Studies propaganda in a pathetic attempt to sidestep and ignore the very real and legitimate reasons as to why anyone, male or female, would participate in a "backlash" against feminism and/or unjust and unconstitutional legislation like VAWA.

The following is her statement of purpose for the rest of the article:

In this article, I investigate fathers’ rights (FR) rhetoric on VAWA as an example of antifeminist backlash. First, I define key terms central to this discussion including sex, gender and patriarchy. Second, I describe the method I used in selecting my sample for analysis. Third I establish the theoretical bases for my analysis, including patriarchal peer support and backlash. Fourth, I present the key themes that I uncovered in FR resistance to VAWA, including calls for formal equality, calls for the reassertion of patriarchy, and objections to women’s authority. Finally, I conclude with remarks about the importance of considering FR backlash and suggestions for additional research.

The rest of my forthcoming postings on this topic will be based on deconstructing her arguments as the pertain to each of her five objectives in this article.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Rush Limbaugh has just celebrated 20 years of broadcasting his right-wing, conservative talk show.

I haven't listened to the man behind the golden microphone at EIB headquarters in a long, long time. However, it is most certainly fitting to pay tribute to the man that gave us the gift of coining the term "FemiNazi" and his hilarious bumper music before giving his latest FemiNazi Updates:

{background music - some lesbo, Lilith Fair folk singer}"Men...what are they good for..."

{The strident harangue from a femiNazi Rally on a microphone}"We're Fierce! We're Feminine! And we're in your F-F-A-A-A-A-C-C-C-E-E-E-E!"

I used to chuckle every time he played that clip.

We also must give him credit for being the first major media figure to speak the truth about Feminist extremists:

“Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”

Of course, the most fitting tribute to celebrate 20 years of the Right Wing King of the AM Radiowaves was given by another famous anti-feminist, conservative pundit (who herself once stated that she would give up her right to vote to reverse Women's Suffrage because she recognizes the truth that her fellow female voters are responsible for the continued advancement of socialism and feminism in public policy and legislation,) Ann Coulter:

The Other Inventor of Radio

08/01/2008

The story of Rush Limbaugh reminds me of a movie you wouldn’t believe could ever happen in real life. Forging his own path against all odds and under constant attack, in the end, the hero triumphs!

I knew about the prominent Limbaugh family before I ever heard of Rush. I clerked for a federal appeals court judge in Kansas City after law school, and every lawyer in the Midwest has heard of the Limbaughs–the Limbaugh judges, the Limbaugh lawyers, the Limbaugh courthouse.

But Rush spurned the law, spurned college and went on radio. He wanted to be on radio, so that’s what he did. He was a conservative, so that’s what he was.

As obvious as it seems now that Rush would be a huge success on radio, it was far from obvious for many years. He was fired repeatedly, until, eventually, his distinctive brand of conservative talk radio that no one believed would work, worked.

When Rush came along, it’s not just that there was no conservative talk radio to speak of. AM radio was dying. And the idea of a national show three hours a day at a time of day when Republicans are at work must have seemed ludicrous to even his friends.

But the moment Rush became a huge success, liberals said he was just in it for the money!

Yes, what surer path to fame and fortune than announcing that you are a conservative and taking on the entire mainstream media while being repeatedly fired?

Perhaps some of Rush’s imitators are in it for the money, but when Rush was coming up, there was absolutely no reason to believe three hours of conservative talk radio was the path to big bucks. (Judging from Air America radio, liberals sure aren't going into talk radio for the money.)

This is why I have a rule: Never trust a conservative public figure who hasn’t been fired, at least once, for being a conservative. Apparently, we can trust Rush!

By being the first and the most successful public conservative, Rush made it leagues easier for those of us who followed him. Among other things, he flushed out liberals and forced them to deploy all their idiotic talking points against him. By now, we’ve heard the same denunciations so often, we can lip-sync liberal attacks on us.

But when Rush started out doing conservative radio, there was no Fox News, there were no other national conservative talk-radio hosts, there was no Drudge Report. Rush just had to stand there taking bullets by himself.

And he had no shortage of critics, on the left and a few envious souls on the right. They’ve never changed, even as Rush became more and more popular and other conservatives followed Rush into various branches of the media and they too became more and more popular. Luckily, Rush's critics have tended to disappear when their newspapers fold or their columns get cancelled, but new ones always pop up spouting the same drivel.

Back in 1991, The Syracuse, (N.Y.) Post-Standard unleashed almost all of the standard liberal clichés against conservatives in a single editorial denouncing Rush. I have categorized them here:

1.His shtick is getting tiresome. “By next year at this time, we may be saying, ‘Rush who?’"

(Actually, by that time the following year people were saying “They're paying Rush Limbaugh how much?" and asking ,“The Syracuse Post-what?”)

2.Thinking conservatives reject him. “He bills himself as a conservative, although thinking conservatives, after an initial chuckle or two, should want to put as much distance between him and themselves as possible.”

(That would explain the 22 million listeners every week, the top-selling newsletter, and the two No.1 bestselling books.)

3.He makes personal attacks! “His favorite technique for discrediting an idea with which he disagrees is to make petty personal attacks against the people who espouse that idea.”

(Yes, who can forget Rush's bestselling Book "Al Franken Is A Big, Fat Idiot"? Wait –that wasn’t his book? What liberals mean by a “personal attack” is any comment about a liberal. )

4.He’s mean. “He is not a nice man, and he doesn't pretend to be. . . . And he's nasty.”

(This would explain the legions of female callers who breathlessly call Rush every day, cooing, gushing, and all but proposing to him over the airwaves. Of course, if by "nice" liberals mean "someone who cares about what liberals think," then they’re right: Rush is not nice, not nice at all. Neither am I!)

5. He’s a fraud who just does it for the money. “Limbaugh admits he's in it for the money.”

(This is as opposed to newspaper editors and reporters who work pro bono.)

6. He’s not as good as [fill in the blank] “Plainly, he's no Edward R. Murrow.”

(And yet, he’s inexplicably more popular than Murrow was.)

7. He’s more like these other losers. “Limbaugh reminds us of Morton Downey, Jr., the celebrated TV hatemonger of a few years ago.”

(Really? Okay, name one similarity. Besides the fact that Rush Limbaugh and Morton Downey, Jr. are both more popular than the Syracuse Post-Standard.)

Even writing a cliché, The Syracuse Post-Mortem couldn’t get it right. They missed liberals' famed “fact-checking” of conservatives and the deft counterargument: “he’s stupid.” So, I’ll add two more from the standard attack on conservatives:

8.He gets his facts wrong! A 1994 article in Newsweek claimed to have found a study showing that “Limbaugh often disdains facts.” Among the examples was this quote from Rush: When "the [black] illegitimacy rate is raised, the Rev. Jackson and other black leaders immediately change the subject."

But according to Newsweek: “For years, Jesse Jackson and others have decried ‘children having children.’"

(Say, wasn’t there a story recently about Jackson threatening to cut someone’s “n--s off”? Oh yes, I remember now! That was what Jackson said he wanted to do to Obama for talking about the black illegitimacy rate.)

9He’s stupid! Or as Ken Bode put it in a 1993 New York Times article: “Mr. Limbaugh is not hobbled by intellectual consistency.”

(22 million listeners a week.)

Attacks like these gave the rest of us something to aspire to! Conservatives, if you’re not being called a mean-spirited has-been, who’s in it for the money, engages in personal attacks, gets his facts wrong and plainly is “no Edward R. Murrow”–you ’re not doing it right.

Liberals have had nearly two decades to come up with some fresh libel of conservatives, but it’s always the same thing. Thank you, Rush Limbaugh! This has been a big help.

Like Jerry Seinfeld’s mother, who can’t understand why everyone doesn’t love Jerry, my mother is constantly perplexed by any criticism of me. I always tell her: “Remember how much you love Rush Limbaugh, Mother, and think of all the terrible things they’ve said about him. Notice how no one ever criticizes Rich Lowry.

This always works, but it makes me wonder: What did Rush tell his mother?

Mr. Limbaugh, for everything you've ever said to expose and ridicule the idiocy of feminism, socialism and collectivism...